Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:51:35.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Only social feedback reduces age-related prospective memory deficits in “Virtual Week”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2014

Agnieszka Niedźwieńska ,
Peter G. Rendell ,
Krystian Barzykowski  and
Alicja Leszczyńska
Agnieszka Niedźwieńska*
Affiliation:
Applied Memory Research Laboratory, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland
Peter G. Rendell
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
Krystian Barzykowski
Affiliation:
Applied Memory Research Laboratory, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland
Alicja Leszczyńska
Affiliation:
Applied Memory Research Laboratory, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Agnieszka Niedźwieńska, Institute of Psychology, Mickiewicza 3, 31-120 Kraków, Poland. Phone: +48-509-222-953; Fax: +48-12-623-76-99. Email: a.niedzwienska@uj.edu.pl.
Get access

Abstract

Background:

Prospective memory, or remembering to do things in the future, is crucial for independent living in old age. Although there is evidence of substantial age-related deficits in memory for intentions, older adults have demonstrated the ability to compensate for their deficits in everyday life. The present study investigated feedback as a strategy for facilitating prospective memory in the elderly.

Method:

Young and older adults played a computer-based task, Virtual Week, in which they had to remember to carry out life-like intentions. After each virtual day, specific feedback on prospective memory performance was automatically provided on the computer screen that participants either proceeded through by themselves (non-social feedback) or were taken through by an experimenter (social feedback). The control group received no feedback.

Results:

We found that, compared with no-feedback group, only social feedback substantially reduced the age-related deficit in prospective memory. Older adults significantly benefited from feedback provided by the experimenter on the tasks of intermediate difficulty. Unexpectedly, prospective memory with non-social feedback was not only worse than with social feedback, but it was not any better than without any feedback at all.

Conclusions:

The results extended previous findings on the effectiveness of feedback in improving the memory performance of older adults to include memory for intentions. Despite the feedback meeting the critical recommendations of being specific, objective, and well-targeted, it was ineffective when the feedback displayed on the computer was not introduced by the experimenter. This has implications for computerized training tasks where automated feedback is considered crucial.

Keywords

agingcognitive activitymemory
Type
Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 26 , Issue 5 , May 2014 , pp. 759 - 767
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altgassen, M., Kliegel, M., Brandimonte, M. and Filippello, P. (2010). Are older adults more social than younger adults? Social importance increases older adults’ prospective memory performance. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 17, 312–28. doi:10.1080/13825580903281308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Basak, C., Boot, W. R., Voss, M. W. and Kramer, A. F. (2008). Can training in a real-time strategy video game attenuate cognitive decline in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 23, 765–777. doi: 10.1037/a0013494.Google Scholar
Brzeziński, J., Gaul, M., Hornowska, E., Jaworowska, A., Machowski, A. and Zakrzewska, M. (2004). Skala Inteligencji Wechslera dla Dorosłych. Wersja Zrewidowana – renormalizacja 2004 – WAIS-R(PL). Warszawa, Poland: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych.Google Scholar
Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 7, 331–338. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.7.3.331.Google Scholar
Da Silva, L. and Sunderland, A. (2010). Effects of immediate feedback and errorless learning on recognition memory processing in young and older adults. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 20, 42–58. doi:10.1080/09602010903036731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, A. H., Manstead, A. S. R. and Zaalberg, R. (2003). Social influences on the emotion process. European Review of Social Psychology, 14, 171–201. doi:10.1080/10463280340000054.Google Scholar
Folstein, M., Folstein, S. and Fanjiang, G. (2009). Krótka Skala Oceny Stanu Umysłowego (MMSE). Warszawa, Poland: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych.Google Scholar
Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghene, P. and Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 304–315. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007.Google Scholar
Green, C. S. and Bavelier, D. (2008). Exercising your brain: a review of human brain plasticity and training-induced learning. Psychology and Aging, 23, 692–701. doi:10.1037/a0014345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.Google Scholar
Henry, J. D., MacLeod, M. S., Philips, L. H. and Crawford, J. R. (2004). A meta-analytic review of prospective memory and aging. Psychology and Aging, 19, 27–39. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.19.1.27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henry, J. D., Rendell, P. G., Phillips, L. H., Dunlop, L. and Kliegel, M. (2012). Prospective memory reminders: a laboratory investigation of initiation source and age effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1274–1287. doi:10.1080/17470218.2011.651091.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kernis, M. H., Brockner, J. and Frankel, B. S. (1989). Self-esteem and reactions to failure: the mediating role of overgeneralization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 707–714. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.707.Google Scholar
Kluger, A. N. and DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.Google Scholar
Knight, R. G., Nicholls, J. and Titov, N. (2008). The effects of old age and distraction on the assessment of prospective memory in a simulated naturalistic environment. International Psychogeriatrics, 20, 124–134. doi:10.1017/S1041610207005923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lustig, C., Shah, P., Seidler, R. and Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (2009). Aging, training, and the brain: a review and future directions. Neuropsychology Review, 19, 504–522. doi:10.1007/s11065-009-9119-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matczak, A., Jaworowska, A., Ciechanowicz, A. and Stańczak, J. (2006). Bateria testów APIS-Z. Podręcznik (Wyd. 2). Warszawa, Poland: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A. and Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, S127–144. doi:10.1002/acp.775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metcalfe, J. and Kornell, N. (2007). Principles of cognitive science in education: the effects of generation, errors, and feedback. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 225–229. doi:10.3758/BF03194056.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mioni, G., Rendell, P. G., Henry, J. D., Cantagallo, A. and Stablum, F. (2013). An investigation of prospective memory function in people with traumatic brain injury using Virtual Week. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 35, 617–630. doi:10.1080/13803395.2013.804036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., van Merrienboer, J. J. G. and Driscoll, M. P. (eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 3rd edn (pp. 125–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rendell, P. G. and Craik, F. I. M. (2000). Virtual and Actual Week: age-related differences in prospective memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology. Special Issue: New Perspectives in Prospective Memory, 14, 43–62. doi:10.1002/acp.770.Google Scholar
Schnitzspahn, K. M., Ihle, A., Henry, J. D., Rendell, P. G. and Kliegel, M. (2011). The age-prospective memory-paradox: An exploration of possible mechanisms. International Psychogeriatrics, 23, 583–592. doi:10.1017/S1041610210001651.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shrauger, J. and Sorman, P. B. (1977). Self-evaluations, initial success and failure, and improvement as determinants of persistence. Journal of Consulting And Clinical Psychology, 45, 784–795. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.45.5.784.Google Scholar
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189. doi:10.3102/0034654307313795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tse, C. S., Balota, D. A. and Roediger, H. L. (2010). The benefits and costs of repeated testing on the learning of face-name pairs in healthy older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25, 833–45. doi:10.1037/a0019933.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vollmeyer, R. and Rheinberg, F. (2005). A surprising effect of feedback on learning. Learning and Instruction, 15, 589–602. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.08.001.Google Scholar
Wang, S.-L. and Wu, P.-Y. (2008). The role of feedback and self-efficacy on web-based learning: The social cognitive perspective. Computers and Education, 51, 1589–1598. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.03.004.Google Scholar
West, R. L., Dennehy-Basile, D. and Norris, M. P. (1996). Memory self-evaluation: The effects of age and experience. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 3, 67–83. doi:10.1080/13825589608256613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, R. L., Bagwell, D. K. and Dark-Freudeman, A. (2005). Memory and goal setting: the response of older and younger adults to positive and objective feedback. Psychology and Aging, 20, 195–201. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.20.2.195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed